Crim Final Flashcards
1
Q
Burden of Proof
A
Prosecution has the burden of proof which means they are tasked with producing evidence for every element of the criminal definition. This is what is needed to convict.
2
Q
Burden of Production
A
The burden of providing evidence to suggest every element of the criminal definition. This is a lower bar than burden of proof.
3
Q
Jury Nullification
A
When a jury refuses to return a guilty verdict even in cases where evidence of guilt is sufficient to meet the legal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
4
Q
Objectives of Punishment
A
Deterrence, Incapacitation, Rehabilitation, Retribution, and Expressivism
5
Q
Deterrence
A
The idea that if a criminal is punished they will be less likely to reoffend (specific) or if other people see a criminal is punished they will be less likely to commit a crime (general).
6
Q
Incapacitation
A
the idea that when a criminal is in prison he/she cannot harm others
7
Q
Rehabilitation
A
The idea that through punishment one can become a better person and return as a functioning member of society.
8
Q
Retribution
A
wrongdoers deserve to suffer for their wrongdoing and punishment is not meant to serve society. “Eye for an eye concept”
9
Q
Expressivism
A
The idea that punishment allows a society to express its disapproval of the defendant’s criminal conduct. However, harm from punishment should not be worse than harm done.
10
Q
Actus reus
A
Refers to conduct and that conduct must be causally related to to the result
11
Q
Mens Rea
A
Refers to ones mental state. What is going on in your head at the moment the action was taken. Shows that there was something different about one’s mental state at the time that violates the social contract and goes beyond carelessness.
12
Q
The Rule of Lenity
A
An ambiguous statute should be read in the defendant’s favor, all other things being equal
13
Q
Retroactivity/ Ex-Post Facto
A
Generally a criminal law statute cannot be passed by legislature and then applied retroactively to a defendant who committed the action before the law passed. They sometimes can if the retroactive application is not completely unexpected or indefensible (year and a day rule)
14
Q
Mistake of Fact (Common Law)
A
Under moral wrong doctrine, a defendant was not able to assert a mistake of fact if what she subjectively believed that she was doing amounted to something immoral.
Under the legal wrong doctrine, defendants were not permitted to argue a mistake of fact if what they subjectively believed they were doing still amounted to committing some lesser crime.
15
Q
Substantial Factor Test
A
when multiple actors cause harm to somebody and the court has to ask whether the acts of one person were substantial enough to cause the harm done.
16
Q
Acceleration Test
A
When some victim has suffered a lethal injury but they are not dead yet and when someone comes in and makes them die faster than they would have.
17
Q
Likelihood of survival test
A
When someone suffers a lethal injury and someone else moves them to somewhere else where their likelihood of survival is impossible
18
Q
Intervening causes
A
An unforeseeable event that breaks the chain of causation between the actions of the defendant (i.e, an assault on the victim) and the harmful result (i.e., the death of the victim)
19
Q
Common Law Categories of Murder
A
- Capital Murder (first degree + aggravation)
- First degree murder
- Second degree murder
- Voluntary manslaughter (first degree)
- Involuntary manslaughter (second degree)
20
Q
First Degree Murder (modern common law)
A
An intentional killing committed with deliberation and premeditation or prior calculation and design
21
Q
How to show malice:
A
Taylor v State demonstrates that in order to imply malice, the evidence must be sufficient to enable any rational trier of fact that there was an intent to kill. A malice murder can be shown not only by evidence that the defendant acted with deliberate intention to unlawfully take the life of another but also by evidence that the defendant acted where no considerable provocation appears and where the circumstances show an abandoned and malignant heart.
22
Q
How to show premeditation
A
State v Guthrie shows that first degree murder requires premeditation and deliberation (also willful), which are not measured by any particular period of time, but there must be some period between the formation of the intent to kill and the actual killing, which indicate the killing is by prior calculations and design… this means that there must be an opportunity for some reflection on the intention to kill after it is formed. The accused must kill purposely after contemplating the intent to kill.
23
Q
Instantaneous premeditation
A
Commonwealth v Carroll shows that the law fixes no length of time required for a jury finding of premeditation. It’s not about the length of time but the quality of thought that went into the act.
24
Q
Prior Calculation
A
State v Walker shows that the element of prior calculation and design requires evidence that supports more than the inference of purpose.
25
3 factors in determining whether a defendant acted with prior calculation and design
1) did the accused and victim know each other, and if so was the relationship strained?
2) did the accused give thought or preparation to choosing the murder weapon or murder site?
3) was the act drawn out of 'an almost instantaneous eruption of events?'
26
Second Degree Murder (common law)
Intentional killings committed without deliberation and premeditation (upon a sudden quarrel) or implied malice murder (acting with knowledge that their actions were dangerous to human life and consciously disregard that risk).
27
Voluntary Manslaughter (common law)
Either intentional killings followed by "provocation" (heat of passion) or intentional killings in "imperfect" self defense.
28
Involuntary manslaughter (common law)
- Unintentional killings resulting from recklessness not rising to the level of implied malice; or
- Unintentional killings resulting from criminal or "gross" negligence; or
- Unintentional killings resulting from or related to the defendant's commission of a misdemeanor.
29
MPC Murder (Section 210.2)
(a) defendant kills another "purposely (acting with conscious object to kill) or knowingly(aware that conduct is practically certain to cause death)"
(b) defendant kills another recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life.
Recklessness presumed if killing occurs in commission or attempted commission (etc.) of listed felonies.
30
MPC Manslaughter (Section 210.3)
(a) defendant acts recklessly in killing another (aware of & consciously disregard substantial and unjustifiable risk)
(b) a killing which would otherwise be murder is committed while defendant is under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse.
31
MPC Negligent Homicide (Section 210.4)
The killing results from the defendant's criminal negligence meaning one is unaware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death, failure to perceive such risk is a gross deviation of standard human behavior. For negligence there is no requirement of awareness of a risk or conscious disregard. Negligent homicide covers the vast array of cases where the defendant's risky behavior causes death, though the defendant did not consciously disregard the risk. Defendant is punished for his carelessness. Negligence requires a deviation from the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would follow under the circumstances.
32
MPC Rule for Manslaughter
Criminal homicide is manslaughter when either - a killing is committed "recklessly": a defendant acts recklessly when he or she is aware that his conduct might result in death or great bodily harm, although that result is not substantially certain to occur.
Or
- when a homicide that would otherwise be a murder is committed under the influence of an extreme mental disturbance for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse. Reasonableness is determined from the viewpoint of the person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as he or she believed them to be.
33
When is malice implied? (common law)
Malice is implied when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.
Malice is also implied when the killing is proximately caused by an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, which act was deliberately performed by a person who knows that his conduct endangers the life of another and who acts with a conscious disregard to life.
34
Express Malice vs Implied Malice (common law)
express malice is where the defendant acted with the unlawful intent to kill whereas implied malice is where the defendant acted with knowledge that his or her actions were dangerous to human life and consciously and intentionally disregarded that risk.
35
First Degree Murder traditional common law terms
A killing committed with malice afterthought.
36
Modern Capital Murder
First Degree Murder + aggravating or special circumstances
37
How to show provocation (common law voluntary manslaughter)
provocation functions as a partial defense because it mitigates the blameworthiness associated with murder to a lesser offense frequently called voluntary manslaughter. In order to qualify as provocation, courts often require that the killing meet the following requirements:
1) adequate provocation
2) killing in the heat of passion
3) performed suddenly before reasonable opportunity for passions to cool
4) causal connection between provocation, passion, and killing.
38
When to apply heat of passion standard for provocation (common law voluntary manslaughter)
To apply the heat of passion standard, the provocation must fall under one of the recognized categories:
1) extreme assault on the defendant
2) mutual combat
3) illegal arrest of the defendant
4) injury or serious abuse of close relative (or friend)
5) sudden discovery of spousal adultery
39
Extreme Emotional Disturbance standard of MPC section 210.3 manslaughter
Extreme Emotional Disturbance downgrades a killing to manslaughter when "committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse. An action influenced by an extreme emotional distress need not be an immediate trigger for criminal conduct. Rather it may be that a significant mental trauma has affected a defendant's mind for a substantial period of time. (State v White)
40
What is adequate provocation? (common law voluntary manslaughter)
For provocation to be adequate, it must be calculated to inflame the passion of a reasonable man and tend to cause him to act for the moment from passion rather than reason. Words can only constitute adequate provocation when they are accompanied by conduct indicating a present intention and ability to cause the defendant bodily harm. Words alone are not enough for adequate provocation. (Girouard v State)
41
How do courts look at provocation caused by injury or serious abuse of a close relative or friend (voluntary manslaughter common law)
A person can be provoked by conduct that causes injury to a relative or close friend and this type of provocation need not be witnessed by the accused, provided that he or she is informed of the actual event. It is also the jury's function to determine whether a response to such injury or abuse is proportional to the force allegedly used against the family member or friend. (state v castagna)
42
Misdemeanor manslaughter rule (common law)
permits a conviction for involuntary manslaughter if the defendant commits an underlying misdemeanor that results in death. The misdemeanor must be the proximate cause of the victim's death.
The disregard of the statutory requirement must also cause a foreseeable risk of death to be blameworthy. If the facts show that such disregard did not exist or did not create a foreseeable risk of death, then the defendant could not be convicted of manslaughter.
If the prosecution can prove that the defendant disregarded the requirements of the misdemeanor statute and that disregard caused a foreseeable risk of death, then the defendant's conduct would not be blameless.
43
Felony Murder (basic definition)
The felony murder rule allows a court to convict a defendant who commits a felony that results in someone's death.
44
Limitations to felony murder convictions
- the independent felony or merger limitation (when the means used to kill someone by the perpetrator is an assaultive felony then the felony murder rule drops off)
- the inherently dangerous felony limitation (they look at the crime in abstract and ask whether it is dangerous by definition or they look at the facts of the case to decide if it is sufficiently dangerous) This factor is used to limit application of felony murder.
- the "in furtherance of the felony" limitation (the killing must be performed in furtherance of the felony and it cannot be too remote from the triggering felony
45
The independent felony or merger limitation for felony murder
The application of the merger doctrine turns on a determination of whether the underlying felony is assaultive in nature. In Rose v State they held that assaultive-type felonies that involve a threat of immediate violent injury merge with a charged homicide for 2nd degree felony murder and therefore cannot be the basis for a second degree felony murder conviction.
46
MPC's approach to felony murder
MPC rejects the felony murder rule. However, MPC does include a provision that covers substantially similar ground. MPC 210.2(1)(b) defines a criminal homicide as murder when it is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Such recklessness and indifference are presumed if the actor is engaged or is an accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt, or flight after committing or attempting to commit robbery, rape, or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson, kidnapping or felonious escape.
47
Components and rationales of felony murder
1) It eliminates the requirement that prosecution prove malice (intent to kill, either express of implied) when killings occur in the course of the commission of felonies.
2) the prosecution only needs to prove that the defendant had the mens reaction associated with the underlying felony
3) the rationale is that certain crimes are serious or dangerous and therefore felonies and by willfully committing them, one has the underlying mens rea.
48
Agency approach to felony murder
One of the perpetrators of the felony has to be the one to do the killing.
49
Battery (common law)
to be convicted of battery, the defendant must
- engage in an unlawful application of physical force
-resulting in either a bodily injury or offensive touching
- acting with purpose, knowledge, or recklessness (or negligence under a few statutes) to cause the prohibited result.
The content of these elements varies across jurisdictions
50
Assault (common law)
There are two avenues to lead to an assault conviction:
1) attempted battery
(a) In that case, the act and mental state requirements remain the same as physical battery - with only difference being the result requirement.
2) The second avenue involves placing the victim in a reasonable apprehension of bodily harm.
(a) In most jurisdictions, the mental state for this form of assault offense is the intent to cause the required apprehension in the victim. there is a reasonable apprehension standard.
51
Kidnapping (common law)
The basic requirements for kidnapping include:
1) confining or carrying away the victim
2) forcibly or by threat or fear or deception
3) for a nefarious purpose.
Some jurisdictions require asportation and will often look to the slightest movement of the victim by the perpetrator to satisfy the requirement.
52
How can battery be committed? (People v Beck, defendant spit on officer)
Battery can be committed if the accused intentionally and knowingly has contact with the victim "by any means" and a particular physical contact may be deemed insulting or provoking based upon the factual context in which it occurs. Whether something is insulting and provoking is evaluated by all the circumstances. Battery can be committed indirectly and not just directly.
53
Elements to determine asportation (Garza factors from Goolsby v State)
When the state must prove whether there has been an unlawful movement, or asportation, of the victim against his or her will, they use the following factors:
1) duration of the movement
2) whether the movement occurred during the commission of a separate offense
3) whether such movement was an inherent part of that separate offense
4) whether the movement itself presented a significant danger to the victim independent of the danger posed by the separate offense.
Many states have rules such as this to show that the asportation creates some greater harm than the victim would otherwise be in.
54
False Imprisonment (common law)
unlawful confinement of another, without asportation or causing some "significant" deprivation of liberty.
55
Common Law theft offenses
Theft offenses under common law were segregated into separate offenses based on the manner in which he property was unlawfully obtained. These include:
- Larceny
- Theft by false pretenses
- embezzlement
- extortion
56
Larceny
is defined as the taking and carrying away of another's property without consent or justification and with the intent to permanently deprive the possessor of the property.
57
Larceny by trick
a subcategory of larceny which involves the use of fraud to unlawfully gain possession over an item.
58
Theft by False Pretenses
Similar to larceny by trick except that theft by false pretenses requires that the actor receive actual title to the property (as opposed to mere possession) through fraud.
59
Embezzlement
Involves an actor's lawful possession of another's personal property, which is then converted or appropriated by the actor with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. Embezzlement focuses on an abuse of trust. An example is when an actor receives an item for one purpose but converts it for personal use.
60
Extortion
extortion statutes prohibit obtaining possession of something by threat or fear, such as threatening to expose a secret or by accusing the victim of a crime.
61
Burglary (common law)
The old common law definition of burglary was breaking and entering of a dwelling of another at night, with the intent to commit a felony inside. This definition was loosened over time in different jurisdictions. At common law, burglary was often described as a specific intent offense because it required that the actor have the intent to unlawfully enter the space and also to further intend to commit a felony inside. The intended crime need not take place as long as the actor intended the crime upon entering.
62
Arson (common law)
arson involves the burning of another's dwelling, but just as burglary has been broadened, so too has arson so that it can apply to the unlawful burning of property or even forest land. At common law, the mens res required was willful and malicious burning, but today the required mental state is usually the intent to cause destruction or damage to property.
63
Robbery
The unlawful taking of another's property, from their person or immediate presence, by physical force or the threat of an immediate application of force.
64
Criminal Attempt (complete attempt vs incomplete attempt)
Attempt: a criminal need not complete a crime in order to be convicted
Complete attempt: when one takes the last step he believes necessary to commit a crime but still fails in his efforts
Incomplete attempt: When one starts the crime but is caught by police before he can finish effort.
65
Requirements for a punishable attempt
- the defendant has the specific intent or purpose to bring about the crime and
- he takes sufficient steps toward committing the crime to satisfy the jurisdiction's actus reus test.
66
The two defenses to attempt
- The crime is impossible to complete
or
- the defendant abandoned the effort
66
The two defenses to attempt
- The crime is impossible to complete
or
- the defendant abandoned the effort
67
Distinguishing attempts from mere preparation
1) The slight acts test: liability is established if the design of a person to commit the crime is clearly shown and the actor commits even "slight acts" in furtherance of that design.
2) The physical proximity test: where the defendant must be close in time and space to the final act that completes the crime.
3) the unequivocally test: asks whether the defendant's conduct unequivocally demonstrates the defendant's intent to commit the crime.
4) the probable desistance test: requires that the defendant's conduct would result in the completed crime in the ordinary and natural course of events if the actor has not been interrupted by a third party.
68
Impossibility Defense to Attempt (legal impossibility vs factual impossibility)
Legal impossibility was often considered a defense whereas factual impossibility was not.
Factual impossibility occurs when the objective of the defendant is proscribed by the criminal law but a circumstance unknown to the actor prevents him from bringing about that objective. The mens rea required for the crime was still there but because of a factual mistake, it did not occur.
Legal impossibility is broken up into two doctrines, pure and hybrid.
Pure legal impossibility covers the rather trivial circumstances where the defendant engages in conduct that he thinks is illegal but is not. In these situations, the defendant cannot be convicted of an attempt.
Hybrid legal impossibility exists if the defendant's goal was illegal, but commission of the offense was impossible due to a factual mistake by her regarding the legal status of some factor relevant to her conduct.
69
The Abandonment Defense for Attempt
There must be voluntary abandonment of the crime and not forceful abandonment or abandonment due to resistance. Ross v Mississippi demonstrates the rule that a perpetrator cannot claim that he abandoned his attempt when, in fact, he ceased his efforts because the victim or a third party intervened or prevented him from furthering his attempt.
70
Merger in Attempt
Attempt always merges into their completed offenses.
71
Is attempt a specific intent crime?
Yes, People v Gentry demonstrates that an attempt is a specific intent crime and it must be one's mental state to impose a specific outcome to be convicted of an attempt crime.
72
Inchoate Conspiracy
Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more individuals to commit an unlawful act.
73
What are the elements of conspiracy
1) agreement to commit an unlawful act
2) specific intent or purpose to achieve the goal or object of the conspiracy, and
3) overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy
74
How to evaluate an agreement to commit an unlawful act for conspiracy
1) the agreement itself is the criminal act of the offense
2) the criminal offense does not require an explicit agreement
3) an implicit agreement between two or more individuals, even if never rendered in more explicit terms, qualifies as a conspiracy.
4) some jurisdictions have followed the unilateral definition of unlawful agreements, which means that a single individual can create an agreement even if there is no true agreement with the other party.
75
How to evaluate specific intent or purpose in conspiracy
in jurisdictions that use language of specific intent, the mens res requirement for conspiracy as a substantive offense is the specific intent that the group commit the crime.
76
How to evaluate an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy
More general conspiracy statutes require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. The requirement is meant to restrain the government's use of the conspiracy doctrine. Many context-specific conspiracy statutes dispense the over-act requirement. An overt act doesn't take much and one just has to do something to push the plan into action.
77
Renunciation in conspiracy
the old common law rationale is that the crime is complete once the agreement is formed and an overt act is committed. Under MPC however it is an affirmative defense that the actor after conspiring to commit a crime, thwarted the success of the conspiracy, under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose.
78
Merger in conspiracy
Unlike attempts, conspiracy does not merge with its completed offense in most jurisdictions.
79
How to evaluate an agreement to commit an unlawful act in conspiracy
State v Pacheco concludes that by requiring an agreement, the legislature intended to retain the requirement of a genuine or bilateral agreement. The issue of State v Pacheco was whether there is a conspiracy when one of the parties was set up by law enforcement and not actually in agreement with the plan. They ended up reversing his conspiracy convictions. However, MPC recognizes a unilateral approach to conspiracy.
80
Distinctions between attempt and conspiracy
1) attempts can and often do involve one person; conspiracies always involve at least two people.
2) attempts generally require a "substantial step" (some direct but ineffectual act toward the commission of the crime; an act that reaches "dangerous proximity" to the commission of the crime; whereas conspiracies only require an overt act by any of the co-conspirators.
81
Entrapment Defense
Requires the defendant to show, by way of an affirmative defense, that he or she was not "predisposed" to commit the crime. You have to admit every aspect of it but say you weren't inclined to do it.
82
Solicitation
Is both an inchoate offense and a mode of liability. A defendant who solicits another individual to commit a crime is guilty of the inchoate crime of solicitation. If the solicited individual then carries out the crime, the solicitor is guilty of that offense as well.
83
Elements of Solicitation
1) specific intent or purpose
2) to solicit (hire, command, request, encourage, or invite)
3) a third party to perform a crime
Each element, by itself, is insufficient to generate a conviction for solicitation.
84
Merger and Renunciation in Solicitation
Merger and renunciation are two situations where a solicitor might escape liability for the crime of solicitation. With merger, most jurisdictions refuse to convict a defendant of both solicitation and the completed crime. The solicitation merges into the completed offense, just like attempt.
85
The difference between solicitation and conspiracy
Most solicitation statutes do not require an overt act, which distinguishes it from conspiracy.
86
What is the actus reus of solicitation?
People v Brenton demonstrates the rule that the actus reus of solicitation involves an attempt to persuade another to commit a crime. Once that has happened you are done. Then in Deckler, the court demonstrates that slight acts are enough when the intent to murder is clearly shown. Solicitation is complete once the request is made and is punishable irrespective of the reaction of the person solicited.
87
Accomplice liability
Accomplice liability is a mode of liability and not an inchoate offense such as attempt. By statute and long standing common law tradition, accomplices can be punished just as harshly as the principal perpetrators they assist.
88
Russo's definition to accomplice liability in general, oversimplified terms
A person who in any way helps another person to commit a crime with the intent to facilitate the commission of that crime is equally culpable as the person who commits that crime and in many jurisdictions can be found culpable for any other crimes committed by the perpetrator that are the "natural and probable consequences" of that target crime.
89
Who is the principal? (accomplice liability)
the person or persons who directly, physically commit the crime
90
Other terms for accomplices
-principals in the second degree
-aiders and abettors
-people present at the scene and helping in some way but who don't physically do the crime
-accessories before or during the fact
91
Is mere presence enough to prove accomplice liability?
No. State v V.T demonstrates how there must be evidence showing that the defendant engaged in some active behavior, or at least speech or other expression, that served to assist or encourage the primary perpetrators in committing the crime. Mere presence or even prior knowledge is not enough.
92
Specific intent and accomplice liability
Rosemond v United States demonstrates how there must be specific intent to facilitate the crime charged in the case and the correct standard is one of prior knowledge. You can't aid a crime if you don't know what that crime is, however, if you know a gun is present, you can be culpable for any crimes used with it regardless of if you yourself use the gun.
93
Natural and probable consequence doctrine of accomplice liability
a person encouraging or facilitating the commission of a crime could be held criminally liable not only for that crime, but for any other offense that was a "natural or probable consequence" of the crime aided and abetted. Connection between the acts, however, must be reasonably apparent and not a fresh and independent product of the mind of one of the other parties outside of it, or foreign to, the common design.
94
Instrumentality rule of accomplice liability
one who effects a criminal act through an innocent or unwitting agent is a principal in the first degree.
95
Conspiracy Liability
How the existence of conspiracy can yield additional liability for its participants.
96
Pinkerton Liability
uses the standard that liability would not attach if the co-conspirator committed a crime that was not reasonably foreseeable to the defendant.
Conspirators are liable for crimes committed by co-conspirators that either:
1) form part of the conspiratorial agreement or
2) stray beyond the conspiratorial agreement but were nonetheless a reasonably foreseeable consequence of that agreement.
Under pinkerton liability, the court need not inquire into the individual culpability of a particular conspirator, so long as the substantive crime was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the conspiracy.
97
Withdrawing from a conspiracy
the standard differs between jurisdictions, but most require that the defendant perform an affirmative act to disavow or defeat the conspiracy. This can be accomplished by:
1) Informing the authorities of the criminal endeavor
2) communicating withdrawal to the co-conspirators
3) dissolving the underlying agreement that forms the basis of the conspiracy
Simply refraining from actively pursuing the objectives of the conspiracy is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of withdrawal.
98
Renunciation in conspiracy liability
renunciation is a defense to the substantive conspiracy charge and requires not only affirmative withdrawal but also that the person act to thwart the success of the conspiracy.
99
Retroactive conspiracy liability
Pinkerton liability is NOT retroactive. Later joining members of a conspiracy are not liable for crimes committed by other conspirators prior to their joining in the enterprise, BUT;
prior overt acts (whether criminal in themselves or not) by other conspirators can be used to establish the substantive crime of conspiracy against later joining members.
100
Accomplice vs Conspiracy Liability for Crimes other than the target crimes
Whether a principal commits a crime other than the target crime, an accomplice is liable for the crime if it was a natural and probable consequence of the crime the accomplice aided and abetted.
When a co-conspirator commits a crime other than the one contemplated by the conspiratorial agreement, the other co-conspirators are liable for whatever is reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances.
101
MPC on Attempt (5.01)
requires that the defendant purposely engage in conduct that would constitute the crime. It also requires that the defendant act with the purpose of causing or with the belief that he will cause such a result.
5(1)(c) purposely does or omits to do anything which, under the circumstances as he believes them to be, is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime.
102
MPC on Attempt (5.01)
requires that the defendant purposely engage in conduct that would constitute the crime. It also requires that the defendant act with the purpose of causing or with the belief that he will cause such a result. MPC's heightened mens rea requirements apply only to conduct and result elements. As for the other elements, such as attendant circumstances, the defendant only needs to act "with the kind of culpability otherwise required for the commission of the crime"
103
Elements of Self Defense
Self defense is a justification
The elements of common law self defense:
1) honest (actual, subjective) and,
2) objectively reasonable belief (most jurisdictions) that,
3) an imminent threat
4) necessitates force (or deadly force, if threat is of death or serious bodily injury) to repel it, and;
5) safe retreat is not possible or legally required.
104
Elements of "imperfect" self-defense (homicides)
1) honest, (actual, subjective) but
2) objectively UNREASONABLE belief that,
3) an imminent threat
4) necessitates deadly force to repel it, and;
5) safe retreat is not believed to be possible or would don't be legally required, then what would otherwise be murder may be reduced to voluntary manslaughter.
105
What do the terms "first aggressor" and "escalation" mean in the context of self-defense
The law permits a person who is the target of an unlawful attack to respond with defensive force. The law does not permit the original or first aggressor to respond to that use of defensive force by the target with defensive force of their own.
If the original unlawful aggressor attacks the victim using non-deadly force and the victim escalates by responding with deadly force, the original aggressor is now permitted to respond to that deadly force. The unjustified "escalation" makes the original victim the aggressor.
106
Imminent threat requirement of self-defense
imminence requires that self-defense be neither too soon nor too late.
107
Necessity and the duty to retreat requirement of self-defense
defensive fore must also be necessary in order to stop the attack. If the target of the aggressive force can repel the attack without resorting to deadly force, then she is required to avail herself to that opportunity. If the target of the attack can safely retreat from the attack and avoid the necessity of using lethal force, the target is legally required to do so.
108
Reasonable Belief requirement of self-defense
To qualify for self-defense, the defendant must sincerely believe that he faces a threat of death of severe bodily injury or sexual assault and that belief is reasonable. People v Goetz demonstrates how a determination of reasonableness must be based on the circumstances facing a defendant or their situation.
109
Necessity: definition and elements
Necessity is a justification for committing a crime judged to be the "lesser of two evils"
In order to present a defense, the following elements must be met:
1) the harm avoided must be greater than the harm caused by committing the criminal act
2) the harm sought to be avoided must be "imminent"
3) there must be no lawful alternative available to avoid the harm
4) the defendant must not be responsible for creating the situation giving rise to the harm they are trying to avoid.
5) committing the lesser crime will prevent harm from occurring (or at least it is reasonable for the defendant to believe so)
6) the defendant must not continue the illegal conduct after the harm is averted.
110
Elements of Duress
1) immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury (to self or others)
2) placed in reasonable fear that the threat would be carried out
3) no reasonable alternative
4) defendant not at fault for creating the situation that produced the duress
5) defendant did not commit murder
Duress is an affirmative defense and usually means the defendant has the burden of production and the burden of persuasion.
111
Intoxication (common law)
defendants could assert voluntary intoxication for specific intent crimes, but voluntary intoxication is no defense to a general intent crime. The rationale for the rule was that specific intent crimes require a higher or more sophisticated mental state (mens rea) and intoxication could interfere with the formation of these higher mental states.
112
Voluntary vs involuntary intoxication
voluntary involves a defendant who willingly imbibes an intoxicating substance such as liquor or drugs, whether legal or prescription whereas involuntary intoxication involves a defendant who is drugged without their knowledge or takes a drug that has an unintended effect of which they were unaware was a possibility.
113
State's power to regulate procedures under which its laws are carried out (Montana v egelhoff)
Supreme Court has that established the rule that it should be within the power of the states to regulate procedures under which its laws are carried out and its decision in this regard is not subject to proscription under the due clause unless it offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.
114
Cause in Fact (but-for causation)
The first step of the causal analysis is determining whether the defendant's behavior was a "cause in fact" of the prohibited result. The court asks whether the result would have occurred "but for" the actions of the defendant. If the defendant had refrained from acting, and the prohibited result occurred anyway then the defendant's action was not a cause in fact of the prohibited result.
115
Proximate cause
Asks whether the defendant's actions are sufficiently related to the resulted harm? Old common law rule was the year and a day rule. However, this has changed as science has allowed us to determine cause of death.
example: guy shook a baby and was indicted for murder when she died as a teenager many years later because his actions were deemed the proximate cause of her death.
116
Purposely (MPC)
acting with conscious object to engage in prohibited conduct.
117
Knowingly (MPC)
aware that conduct is practically certain to cause a result
118
Recklessly (MPC)
aware of and consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk
119
Negligently (MPC)
should be aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk.
